Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion

"WP:MFD" redirects here. For other uses, see WP:MFD (disambiguation).

Miscellany for deletion (MfD) is a place where Wikipedians decide what should be done with problematic pages in the namespaces which aren't covered by other specialized deletion discussion areas. Items sent here are usually discussed for seven days; then they are either deleted by an administrator or kept, based on community consensus as evident from the discussion, consistent with policy, and with careful judgment of the rough consensus if required.

Filtered versions of the page are available at

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion no drafts
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion no portals
• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion no user pages

Information on the process

What may be nominated for deletion here:

• Pages not covered by other XFD venues, including pages in these namespaces: Draft:, Help:, Portal:, MediaWiki:, Wikipedia: (including WikiProjects), User:, TimedText:, MOS:, Event: and the various Talk: namespaces
• Userboxes, regardless of the namespace
• File description pages when the file itself is hosted on Commons
• Any other page, that is not in article space, where there is dispute as to the correct XFD venue.

Requests to undelete pages deleted after discussion here, and debate whether discussions here have been properly closed, both take place at Wikipedia:Deletion review, in accordance with Wikipedia's undeletion policy.

Notes

Before nominating a page for deletion

Before nominating a page for deletion, please consider these guidelines:

Deleting pages in your own userspace	If you want to have your own userpage or a draft you created deleted, there is no need to list it here; simply tag it with {{db-userreq}} or {{db-u1}} if it is a userpage, or {{db-author}} or {{db-g7}} if it is a draft. If you wish to clear your user talk page or sandbox, just blank it.
Deletions in draftspace	Unlike articles, drafts are generally not deleted solely due to lack of demonstrated notability or context. Drafts that have not been edited in six months may be deleted under criterion for speedy deletion G13 and do not need nomination here. Duplications in draftspace are usually satisfactorily fixed by redirection. If the material is in mainspace, redirect the draft to the article, or a section of the article. If multiple draft pages on the same topic have been created, tag them for merging. See WP:SRE. For further information on draft deletion, including when nomination here is appropriate, see WP:NMFD
Deleting pages in other people's userspace	Consider explaining your concerns on the user's talk page with a personal note or by adding {{subst:Uw-userpage}} ~~~~  to their talk page. This step assumes good faith and civility; often the user is simply unaware of the guidelines, and the page can either be fixed or speedily deleted using {{db-userreq}}. Take care not to bite newcomers – sometimes using the {{subst:welcome}} or {{subst:welcomeg}} template and a pointer to WP:UP would be best first. Problematic userspace material is often addressed by the User pages guidelines including in some cases removal by any user or tagging to clarify the content or to prevent external search engine indexing. (Examples include copies of old, deleted, or disputed material, problematic drafts, promotional material, offensive material, inappropriate links, 'spoofing' of the MediaWiki interface, disruptive HTML, invitations or advocacy of disruption, certain kinds of images and image galleries, etc) If your concern relates to these areas consider these approaches as well, or instead of, deletion. User pages about Wikipedia-related matters by established users usually do not qualify for deletion. Articles that were recently deleted at AfD and then moved to userspace are generally not deleted unless they have lingered in userspace for an extended period of time without improvement to address the concerns that resulted in their deletion at AfD, or their content otherwise violates a global content policy such as our policies on Biographies of living persons that applies to any namespace.
Policies, guidelines and process pages	Established pages and their sub-pages should not be nominated, as such nominations will probably be considered disruptive, and the ensuing discussions closed early. This is not a forum for modifying or revoking policy. Instead consider tagging the page as {{historical}} and/or moving it into the historical archive, or redirecting it somewhere. Proposals still under discussion generally should not be nominated. If you oppose a proposal, discuss it on the policy page's discussion page. Consider being bold and improving the proposal. Modify the proposal so that it gains consensus. Also note that even if a policy fails to gain consensus, it is often useful to retain it as a historical record, for the benefit of future editors.
WikiProjects and their subpages	It is generally preferable that inactive WikiProjects not be deleted, but instead be marked as {{WikiProject status|inactive}}, redirected to a relevant WikiProject, or changed to a task force of a parent WikiProject, unless the WikiProject was incompletely created or is entirely undesirable. WikiProjects that were never very active and which do not have substantial historical discussions (meaning multiple discussions over an extended period of time) on the project talk page should not be tagged as {{historical}}; reserve this tag for historically active projects that have, over time, been replaced by other processes or that contain substantial discussion (as defined above) of the organization of a significant area of Wikipedia. Before deletion of an inactive project with a founder or other formerly active members who are active elsewhere on Wikipedia, consider moving it into the historical archive, or userfication. Notify the main WikiProject talk page when nominating any WikiProject subpage, in addition to standard notification of the page creator.
Alternatives to deletion	Normal editing that does not require the use of any administrator tools, such as merging the page into another page or renaming it, can often resolve problems. Pages in the wrong namespace (e.g. an article in Wikipedia namespace), can simply be moved and then tag the redirect for speedy deletion using {{db-g6|rationale= it's a redirect left after a cross-namespace move}}. Notify the author of the original article of the cross-namespace move.
Alternatives to MfD	Speedy deletion If the page clearly satisfies a "general" or "user" speedy deletion criterion, tag it with the appropriate template. Be sure to read the entire criterion, as some do not apply in the user space.

Please familiarize yourself with the following policies

• Wikipedia:Deletion policy – our deletion policy that describes how we delete things by consensus
• Wikipedia:Deletion process – our guidelines on how to list anything for deletion
• Wikipedia:Guide to deletion – a how-to guide whose protocols on discussion format and shorthands also apply here
• Wikipedia:Project namespace – our guidelines on "Wikipedia" namespace pages
• Wikipedia:User page – our guidelines on user pages and user subpages
• Wikipedia:Userboxes – our guideline on userboxes

How to list pages for deletion

Please check the aforementioned list of deletion discussion areas to check that you are in the right area. Then follow these instructions:

Instructions on listing pages for deletion:

To list a page for deletion, follow this three-step process: (replace PageName with the name of the page, including its namespace, to be deleted)

Note: Users must be logged in to complete step II. An unregistered user who wishes to nominate a page for deletion should complete step I and post their reasoning on Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion with a notification to a registered user to complete the process.

I.	Edit PageName: Enter the following text at the top of the page you are listing for deletion: {{mfd|1={{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}}} for a second or subsequent nomination use {{mfdx|2nd}} or {{mfd|GroupName}} if nominating several similar related pages in an umbrella nomination. Choose a suitable name as GroupName and use it on each page. If the nomination is for a userbox or similarly transcluded page, use {{subst:mfd-inline}} so as to not mess up the formatting for the userbox. Use {{subst:mfd-inline|GroupName}} for a group nomination of several related userboxes or similarly transcluded pages. Please include in the edit summary the phrase Added MfD nomination at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]] replace PageName with the name of the page that is up for deletion. Please don't mark your edit summary as a minor edit. Check the "Watch this page" box if you would like to follow the page in your watchlist. This may help you to notice if your MfD tag is removed by someone. Save the page
II.	Create its MfD subpage. The resulting MfD box at the top of the page should contain the link "this page's entry" Click that link to open the page's deletion discussion page. Insert this text: {{subst:mfd2| pg={{subst:#titleparts:{{subst:PAGENAME}}||2}}| text=Reason why the page should be deleted}} ~~~~ replacing Reason... with your reasons why the page should be deleted and sign the page. Do not substitute the pagename, as this will occur automatically. Consider checking "Watch this page" to follow the progress of the debate. Please use an edit summary such as Creating deletion discussion page for [[PageName]] replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion. If appropriate, inform members of the most relevant WikiProjects through one or more "deletion sorting lists". Then add a {{subst:delsort|<topic>|<signature>}} template to the nomination, to insert a note that this has been done. Save the page.
III.	Add a line to MfD. Follow   this edit link   and at the top of the list add a line: {{subst:mfd3| pg=PageName}} Put the page's name in place of "PageName". Include the discussion page's name in your edit summary like Added [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]] replacing PageName with the name of the page you are proposing for deletion. Save the page. If nominating a page that has been nominated before, use the page's name in place of "PageName" and add {{priorxfd|PageName}} in the nominated page deletion discussion area to link to the previous discussions and then save the page using an edit summary such as Added [[Template:priorxfd]] to link to prior discussions.

• If nominating a page from someone else's userspace, notify them on their main talk page.
  For other pages, while not required, it is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the miscellany that you are nominating. To find the main contributors, look in the page history or talk page of the page and/or use TDS' Article Contribution Counter or Wikipedia Page History Statistics. For your convenience, you may add

  {{subst:mfd notice|PageName}} ~~~~

  to their talk page in the "edit source" section, replacing PageName with the pagename. Please use an edit summary such as

  Notice of deletion discussion at [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName]]

  replacing PageName with the name of the nomination page you are proposing for deletion.
• If the user has not edited in a while, consider sending the user an email to notify them about the MfD if the MfD concerns their user pages.
• If you are nominating a WikiProject, please post a notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council, in addition to the project's talk page and the talk pages of the founder and active members.

Administrator instructions

XFD backlog

V	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Total
CfD	0	0	102	81	183
TfD	0	1	0	55	56
MfD	0	0	0	0	0
FfD	3	6	2	38	49
RfD	0	0	0	51	51
AfD	0	0	0	13	13

Administrator instructions for closing and relisting discussions can be found here.

Archived discussions

A list of archived discussions can be located at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates.

Current discussions

Pages currently being considered for deletion are indexed by the day on which they were first listed. Please place new listings at the top of the section for the current day. If no section for the current day is present, please start a new section.

August 26, 2026

User:Michael189878932

User:Michael189878932 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

Spam, not intended use of a user page - AllegedlyAPhotographer_(talk) 20:37, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Delete per nom --Chicken4War (talk) 20:45, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Neutral for now, user created their account and this page today. Weakly suggesting moving to creator's sandbox, albeit this is their only edits with clearly no meaningful content beyond a copy of Google AI's output. TruenoCity (talk) 21:44, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

• Keep: Move it to the creator's sandbox to avoid biting the newcomers. In solidarity, Gommeh ^{(talk 🎮 sign)} 21:02, 27 August 2026 (UTC)
• Weak Sandboxify and remind the creator to do something that has something to do with the encyclopedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:58, 28 August 2026 (UTC)
• Keep - Remove the '67' spam/test if desired. Maybe leave them a note on their talk page. If they go inactive for a bit, then {{userspace blanked}} would be appropriate. Entire contents are pseudo-draft sort content at top of page and large '67'-"test" sort of editing below; not problematic enough in userspace for a listing here. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 06:18, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Keep, optionally blank. Per WP:BITE and WP:ATD. Martinp (talk) 12:53, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

Keep, but the user should be warned/advised about the kind of content they shouldn't have on their user page, in line with WP:UPNOT. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 20:36, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Delete. Not within reasonable leeway for a non contributor.
Regarding the first version, “Delete as an unsourced BLP”, or delete and refer the newcomer to J. J. McCarthy; please improve that page directly, or discuss on its talk page.
Blank, and sandboxify are good alternatives, neither required MfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:06, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

August 22, 2026

User:Bravelake/userboxes/AntifaTerror

User:Bravelake/userboxes/AntifaTerror (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​

WP:UBCR and WP:UBDIVISIVE and WP:UP, e.g. WP:POLEMIC. Polygnotus (talk) 04:58, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Is this some kinda meme I am unaware of? Polygnotus (talk) 05:00, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

• Strong and speedy delete and an indef for creator. We can't have users casually tossing allegations of terrorism around, so this would be a delete even if it was created in good faith but that issue doesn't arise as this is pure trolling from an unrepentant troll. The creator should have been indeffed after the egregious anti-trans trolling that led to this previous MfD. We also need to revisit the issues which were not resolved when this blatant trolling inexplicably survived another previous MfD. Sure, he does other editing which is not obviously bad but one can't edit Wikipedia with a plausibly serious hat on one day and a troll hat on another. This shows an absolute lack of respect for the project, as do the obviously disingenuous attempts at self-justification on the previous MfDs. It's time to stop wasting our time. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:29, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

  Maybe, but on this page its about "this userbox does not follow the rules and therefore we should delete it". If they're trolling, then go to ANI or whatever. Polygnotus (talk) 14:49, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

  I disagree that antifa is like anti-trans. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:41, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related AfD discussions. 10:36, 22 August 2026 (UTC) --DanielRigal (talk) 10:36, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
• Note: this discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related AfD discussions. 10:36, 22 August 2026 (UTC) --DanielRigal (talk) 10:36, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Weak delete. Where @DanielRigal sees "pure trolling", I start by extending good faith and/or Occam's razor and merely see a U.S. conservative editor stating their own U.S.-conservative/MAGA views. To those of us outside it, that is a strange echo chamber, but those viewpoints are genuinely held by many...and the use of userboxes to show one's own biases as explaining one's own editing is accepted on wikipedia. That said, throwing around allegations of terrorism is divisive and polemic, and those same political views can be made stepping away from this level of stridency, hence I ultimately !vote deletion. I do so only weakly since, for better or worse, the language used by MAGA has stretched the Overton window and this is now part of mainstream political discourse. On balance, however, I still think the creator could make their point less divisively, and that's why I say to delete. Martinp (talk) 13:11, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

I understand why you say this. If this MfD was happening in isolation, without its context, then I'd be taking a much more similar tone to yours. There certainly is a possibility that somebody else might make a similar infobox without realising how inappropriate it is and they absolutely would not deserve to be sanctioned for that. The fact that this is the work of somebody who has already been round this loop a couple of times, and has clearly chosen to force us all take a trip around it again, is what makes the difference for me. They exhausted my reserves of AGF the last two times, hence they start from zero this time. I've linked the last two MfDs so people can see what the deal is. Having said that, I think that your !vote is probably more valuable than mine because yours shows that, even with the maximum possible extension of AGF, this is not a Keep. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:45, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Alternatively, they have a point of view that all these infoboxes are all well within the Overton window, and that assuming they must be trolling is itself an indication of the political lean of the Wikipedia community, and choosing to force us all (to) take a trip around it again is a legitimate part of fighting bias on Wikipedia. I think their views are out to lunch, but I am happy to AGF that this is their intent -- since there are many who hold precisely those views. I see you feel passionately about all this, from your point here and your contributions at those MfDs. However, I think you are yourself crossing the line into personal attack territory when you shift from labelling contributions as trolling (an opinion that can be debated, and as you saw did not reach consensus on at least one of those MfDs, but is about the motivation of specific actions) to labelling someone as an unrepentant troll. Since I AGF that you genuinely feel that someone who engages like this must be a troll, and it is integral to your firmly held argument that this page should be speedily deleted, I think it would be inappropriate to ask you to strike it. But I do feel it's important to approach expression of borderline extreme/mainstream political views with careful attention to the "divisiveness" criterion (and other policy-based criteria) rather than with labels. The MfD's you linked show that discussions on these topics in particular that to some appear completely clear-cut sometimes do not reach consensus at all, so a real discussion is needed. Martinp (talk) 16:38, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Keep — this userbox, like *many, many* others within the userspace, allows editors to identify with a belief regarding a notable topic. That some users may disagree with its sentiment doesn’t mean it 1) violates guidelines or 2) is a trolling attempt. My edit history is replete with good faith, substantial, and accurate additions to this project. None of my edits are made in bad faith of in furtherance of “trolling”. Such allegations seem to come from those who cannot fathom others disagreeing with their own views.

Userboxes exist to allow editors to identify themselves, their views, or their biases. A belief that a political action group promotes terrorism is a scholarly topic discussed on Wikipedia and ought to be an area in which editors make take a side. Whether or not ANTIFA is a terroristic entity is, of course, an individual belief, as this userbox clearly states. Users are welcome to create an opposing userbox (or choose one of the pro-ANTIFA userboxes that exist already).

MfD doesn’t exist to nuke userboxes any one of us disagree with or dislike. This particular userbox is civil, measured, and expresses viewpoints that belong within the wiki project. Bravelake (talk) 23:52, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

weak Keep. Not particularly divisive. Not POLEMIC. Three users transclude this userbox, and they seem reasonable Wikipedians. Proposals seeking to censor political expression should be required to be much more articulated than this nomination. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:32, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

If this nomination should not be taken in isolation, without its context, then the nomination needs to provide context. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:43, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

My !vote is along the lines of the "Neutral" by User:Choucas below. I don't the reasons for deletion are good enough, but this is not to say that I support the userbox, or think it is for the benefit of Wikipedia. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:58, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

@everyone: Since potential user conduct issues are offtopic here please don't discuss them here. Thanks, Polygnotus (talk) 16:45, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

• Delete Clear violation of WP:UBCR as a personal attack of the sort that is explicitly listed there as banned. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:39, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

  User:Zxcvbnm, which person is personally attacked? Is Antifa a person?
  Your links would seem to lead indirectly to Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Which is the explicit part? SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:30, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

  It's a de facto attack on anyone who may hold those political views. If someone holds them, they will of course feel like they are being directly attacked. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:42, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

  Yeah, it’s a political position. I think it fails a reasonable definition of “personal”. Attacking an idea makes people believing that idea feel being attacked? That’s more than a stretch on WP:NPA.
  I am long-term undecided on political Userboxes. I support WP:NONAZIS as a userbox and Userpage deletion rationale. I’d like to see an honest description of where the line is. I don’t need it to be a bright line, but a broad class of unnamed “adherents might feel attacked” is not clear enough.
  The downside of allowing unpopular opinion needs to be weighed against the downside of perception of censorship of unpopular opinion. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:40, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

  WP:POLEMIC is part of WP:UBCR and applies to userboxes. It expressly prohibits "statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities". This is very much precisely that, so removing it would not be a violation of NOTCENSORED. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:16, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

  I think this is a helpful formulation. My weak delete above is because this is needlessly divisive and polemical - the same information about the editor's beliefs can be transmitted less stridently, and as a userbox it crosses the line into strident political advocacy instead. However, it is not a personal attack in the WP:NPA sense. Martinp (talk) 12:06, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

• User:Polygnotus, why do you feel the need to attempt to constrain my expression of opinions? I think conduct issues can be relevant. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:33, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

  @SmokeyJoe Good point. Ok everyone SmokeyJoe is permitted to say and do whatever they want. Everyone else please discuss user conduct in the appropriate forums. Thanks. Polygnotus (talk) 06:35, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

  Sarcasm can be funny. SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:42, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

  The intent of the user in hosting the userbox matters. To divine and psychoanalyze the users intent, the host users’ conduct may be a consideration. This is precedent. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:44, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

  Admins are unlikely to ban/block based on XfDs. And very detailed discussions of user conduct can distract from the more relevant discussion about deleting a userbox or not. In this case, since guidelines prohibit such userboxe(s/n) that part is easy. Polygnotus (talk) 08:54, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

  I have seen editors get blocked by admins and later banned by the community because of their userboxes before, but that's the sort of thing that would be better discussed at ANI than here.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 22:37, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

  I'd just like to apologise for my part in this getting derailed. I recognised what was going on but somehow I still fell for it. I should have reported the egregious behavioural aspects of this elsewhere and focused on the egregious nature of the specific userbox here. I allowed myself to be goaded into failing to follow advice that I have sometimes even given to other people around WP:DNFTT. Let's all try to do that from now on. I know it's not easy. (If it is helpful, I'd be willing to pare back my !vote accordingly. It will still be "strong and speedy delete" though.) There's plenty to be annoyed with here but and let's not get annoyed with Polygnotus for only pointing out what is correct. I'm sure that the other aspects will pop up somewhere more appropriate if any further provocative userboxes of this type are created. --DanielRigal (talk) 10:22, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

• Neutral. It is clear this userbox is carefully worded to avoid being in breach of the letter of the rule when it comes to this matter. Nevertheless, my personal preference would be for this kind of box to not be used, not because I do not like this or that opinion, but because they are a permanent time-sink, a source of useless acrimony, pointless discussions such as this one, and overall a clear net negative for the project. So with that in mind, I would like to encourage @Bravelake to pause and reflect for a second the next time he feels like adding an item to User:Bravelake/userboxescreated. None of these boxes have anything to do with editing Wikipedia, they hinder collaborative editing, and they accomplish nothing. No one should have to care about your political opinions. Please do not force others to care by skirting on the edge of our policies in such a counterproductive way. We are WP:Here to build an encyclopedia. Choucas 🐦‍⬛ 15:00, 24 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete Calling a not-insignificant number of editors terrorists or terrorist sympathizers is something that cannot conceivably benefit the project. I don't agree with the comment above that this avoids breaching the letter of the rule, seems an awful lot like statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities. For what it's worth, I broadly support giving editors a lot of leeway to express their views, even views on contentious topics - if not especially on contentious topics - because I believe it's easier for ourselves and others to keep our biases in check when editing those topics if we're upfront and honest about those biases. But there is absolutely a line between expressing yourself versus being overly inflammatory or divisive, and "the anti-fascism movement promotes terrorism" crosses that line to me. I also second much of what Polygnotus and DanielRigal had to say as the nom of previous MfDs of this user's anti-trans userboxes, and I also really cannot believe the "LGB community" one survived. I'm of half a mind to renominate it after six months have passed, but I don't know that I have it in me, the last one was exhausting enough (it was the first time I had ever disclosed being trans onwiki, not because I was comfortable doing so, but because because at least some of the keep voters in that discussion seemed to be under the impression that my taking offense to that userbox wouldn't count otherwise).  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 22:37, 26 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete as per Vanilla Wizard, and I will also note as it stands its listed on Wikipedia:Userboxes/Politics/Issues, right below Template:User antifa, from which it borrows largely the same formatting in terms of image and colours. The positioning therefore appears directly targeted towards anyone who transcludes said userbox, implying they "promote terrorism". Iostn (talk) 22:51, 28 August 2026 (UTC)
• Delete per Vanilla Wizard, with possible indef for creator per DanielRigal. I also share the sentiment stressed above regarding the creator's anti-trans userboxes, and I believe they should be renominated for deletion. — Sundostund mppria ^{(talk / contribs)} 20:29, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

August 21, 2026

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Vënash Bailey

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. The result of the discussion was: delete. Star Mississippi 16:29, 29 August 2026 (UTC) Draft:Vënash Bailey Draft:Vënash Bailey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – (View MfD)​ Gaming of the draft name to avoid salting at Draft:Venash Bailey. This draft has been rejected 3 times in its history, which is 2 times more than is necessary. Also note that WP:LUDA says One situation when drafts should be nominated for deletion is if the draft has been rejected, and has been tendentiously resubmitted after rejection. This is the case here. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 23:36, 21 August 2026 (UTC) Also nominated for deletion: Draft:Venash Draft:Vènash Draft:Venash Bailey (music creator and producer) Draft:Venash Bailey (Kenyan Artist) Comment - the draft is basically identical to Draft:Venash, Draft:Vènash, Draft:Venash Bailey (music creator and producer), Draft:Venash Bailey (Kenyan Artist) and many others. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 23:40, 21 August 2026 (UTC) User:BusterD, WP:DONTSALT draftspace. It is counterproductive. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:18, 22 August 2026 (UTC) Delete all. Draft:Vënash Bailey, Draft:Venash, Draft:Vènash, Draft:Venash Bailey (music creator and producer), Draft:Venash Bailey (Kenyan Artist), all for the same reason. Do not protect any of these titles. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:22, 22 August 2026 (UTC) I am going to bundle them all into this MfD as they are all basically the same draft copied and pasted. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 00:26, 22 August 2026 (UTC) 👍 SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:50, 23 August 2026 (UTC) Delete All as per nominator, tendentiously submitted, and as gaming of titles. The multiple names illustrate precisely why, as SmokeyJoe says, salting of drafts is counterproductive. It too often causes the ultra to evade the protection by changing the spelling, by unnecessary disambiguation, or, as we see here, the unnecessary use of diacritics. Consider the Title blacklist, which is often effective against gaming of titles. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:59, 22 August 2026 (UTC) MfD can also be quite effective here. If this discussion concludes as delete, my understanding is that any subsequent attempts to recreate the same draft (e.g. Draft:Venash Bailey (musician) or whatever title) could just be tagged for G4, citing this MfD, and an admin can quickly delete, with minimal time spent. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:27, 22 August 2026 (UTC) Delete all as a pattern of promotional tendentious resubmission. As to technical means to prevent further resubmission, I leave those to more experienced. The goal should be that attempts to recreate can be nuked on sight. In the eventuality that in the future this subject becomes notable, someone (preferably non-COI) can come here, present 2-3 RS, and get the deletion and protective measures removed that way. Martinp (talk) 12:12, 24 August 2026 (UTC) Delete all per nom. — Sundostund mppria (talk / contribs) 19:48, 24 August 2026 (UTC) delete all per above --Lenticel (talk) 04:04, 25 August 2026 (UTC) Delete all per above. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 03:36, 26 August 2026 (UTC) Delete: per reasons given above. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 00:10, 29 August 2026 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Closed discussions

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Archived debates